On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 17:45, <[email protected]> wrote:
>...
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/entries.c Tue Oct 18 21:45:09 2011
>...
> - if (entry->absent)
> + else if (entry->absent)
> {
> - SVN_ERR_ASSERT(base_node && !working_node);
> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT(base_node && !working_node && !below_working_node);
We should also assert for parent_node here (needed below). An absent
node always needs a parent, so the assertion should be fine.
>...
> @@ -1873,9 +1875,22 @@ write_entry(struct write_baton **entry_n
>
> if (entry->deleted)
> {
> - base_node->presence = svn_wc__db_status_not_present;
> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT(base_node->presence ==
> svn_wc__db_status_not_present);
Yup.
> + /* ### should be svn_node_unknown, but let's store what we have. */
> + base_node->kind = entry->kind;
> + }
> + else if (entry->absent)
> + {
> + SVN_ERR_ASSERT(base_node->presence
> + == svn_wc__db_status_server_excluded);
> /* ### should be svn_node_unknown, but let's store what we have. */
> base_node->kind = entry->kind;
> +
> + /* Store the most likely revision in the node to avoid
> + base nodes without a valid revision. Of course
> + we remember that the data is still incomplete. */
> + if (!SVN_IS_VALID_REVNUM(base_node->revision) && parent_node->base)
> + base_node->revision = parent_node->base->revision;
Here: parent_node is dereferenced. As I said, it should be non-NULL
anyways, but for clarity we can assert that.
>...
There are some later changes from Philip which may cause a problem.
I'll note that separately.
This change looks right. Thanks!
Cheers,
-g
